[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201203204852.nvbs37m52cigs3oe@skbuf>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 22:48:52 +0200
From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To: Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@...dekranz.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, andrew@...n.ch,
vivien.didelot@...il.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
j.vosburgh@...il.com, vfalico@...il.com, andy@...yhouse.net,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 2/4] net: dsa: Link aggregation support
On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 10:13:54AM +0100, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
> +static int dsa_slave_check_lag_upper(struct net_device *dev)
> +{
> + struct dsa_port *dp = dsa_slave_to_port(dev);
> + struct dsa_switch_tree *dst = dp->ds->dst;
> +
> + if (!dsa_lag_offloading(dst))
> + return NOTIFY_DONE;
> +
> + if (dsa_lag_by_dev(dst, dev))
> + return NOTIFY_OK;
> +
> + if (!dsa_lag_available(dst))
> + return notifier_from_errno(-EBUSY);
If for any reason there are no LAGs available in hardware, I think this
should still return NOTIFY_OK and we should not reject it, just not
offload it.
Which is to say that I basically don't understand the point of the
PRECHANGEUPPER checks.
> +
> + return NOTIFY_OK;
> +}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists